↓ Skip to main content

Congenital Heart Defects and Ciliopathies Associated With Renal Phenotypes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Congenital Heart Defects and Ciliopathies Associated With Renal Phenotypes
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00175
Pubmed ID
Authors

George C. Gabriel, Gregory J. Pazour, Cecilia W. Lo

Abstract

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is one of the most common birth defects, and recent studies indicate cilia-related mutations play a central role in the genetic etiology of CHD. As cilia are also known to have important roles in kidney development and disease, it is not surprising that renal anomalies were found to be enriched among CHD mutant mice recovered in a large-scale mouse forward genetic screen. Indeed 42% of mutations identified to cause both CHD and renal anomalies were cilia-related. Many of these cilia mutations comprise cilia transition zone or inversin compartment components, consistent with the known role of these cilia proteins in a wide variety of ciliopathies. The high prevalence of CHD with congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT) observed in mice was also corroborated with clinical studies that showed 20-30% of CHD patients have renal anomalies. Together these findings suggest CHD patients may benefit from early screening for renal anomalies to allow early diagnosis and intervention to improve outcome for this vulnerable patient population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 22%
Mathematics 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,822,740
of 23,317,888 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#454
of 6,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,935
of 329,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#17
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,317,888 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.